LexSANTOSH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H SANTO SH ~. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Februafly 7, 1975 [M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.J 463 Indian Pe11al Code Section 302/149-Common objecr-Concurrent (t•1dings of fac.t-Vicario11s liability of members of an 1111!awf11/ as~embly. 118 persons were prosecuted for participation in a serious riot. 5 a~cused were. dis·charged by the Committing Magistrate. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted 61 accused and convicted 52 ur.der section 147 and sentenced them to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was held guilty under section 304p) read with 149. and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment, under sectlon 325 /149 sentenced. to 2 years rigorous impri;omnent and under section 323/149 sentenced to a month's rigorous imprisonment. The convicted persons and the State filed appeal~ l)efore the High Court. The High Court convicted 14 persons including the appellant and altered his conviction under section 304/1/149 into 302/149 for the murder of 3 persons and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. The Learned Counsel for the appellant before this Court contended that the appellant did not participate in the riot. HELD : This Court is unable to disturb the concurTcnt findings of the two courts below about appellant's participation in the riot. The High Court how- ever, was wrong in holding that the common object of the unlawful :mcm- bly was necessarily to cause death of three individuals. In a case like the pre- sent there were two factions; one of the oppressors :rnd the other of the opp- ressed, and the i11te·1tion of members of the oppressed faction could be initially, to demonstrate quite lawfully. The circumstances ,ho•ved that the appellant's intention may have been confined to joining a procession for purposes of pro- test. If it is doubtful that the common object uf ti1e unlawful assembly was to cause death, persons other than those who actually cominitted the acts resulting in death could not be held vicariously liable for murder. [464F-G; 564H- 466D] . [The judgment of the High Court as far as appellant is concerned was set aside and that of the Sessions Court restored.] [ 446G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1971. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the 30th March, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 1 %6). P. P. Juneja for the app~llant. Ram P1mjwa!!i and H. S. Parihar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was dctivcred by BEG, J. This is an appeal by special leave by one out of 118 per- sons wb') were prosecuted for participation in a serious riot on Augu>t l, 1965; in village Ganiari, Tehsil Bilaspur, in the State of Madhya Pm·· c1csh, as a result of which several persons were attacked with sharp edged weapons and three of them died of wounds sustained by them. Five •accused persons were discharged by the Committing Magistrate. One hundred and thirteen persons were jointly tried for various offen- ces punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 325 and 323 Indian Penal Code. Charges were also alternatively framed under Section 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 3 S.C.R. 302/149, 307/~49, 323/149 an~ 325/149 a¥ainst ~11 of them. An Additional Sess10ns' Judge of Bilaspur acquitted sixty one accused persons and convicted fifty two persons. He found all the conv~~ted persons guilty under Section 147 .P.C. and senrenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment. We need only mention the other con- victions of the appellant before us. He was held guilty under Section 304(1 )/149 IPC and ·se.ntenced to five years rigorous imprisonrt1ent and under Section 325/149 IPC and sentenced to t«'.o.lears rigoi:dus impriSj)nment, and under Section 323/149 IPC and sentenced t1) a month's rigorous imprisonment. On appeals by the convicted persons as well as by the State Govern- ment, the High Court, while convicting only fourt~en persons, includ- ing the appellant, altered his conviction under section 304(1) /149 IPC into three convictions under Section 302/149 for the murder of three persons Badlu, Santu, Chhote Bhurwa, but it m•ade the :;en- tences of life impriso•ament concurrent for the three offences. It m.t1in- tained the other convictions and sentences passed by the learned Ses- :;ions' Judge. learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to advance some arguments to assail the conviction of the appellant for participatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.